Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ms. Rajshree Sahu vs Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic ... on 12 April, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 12 th OF APRIL, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 14614 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
MS. RAJSHREE SAHU, D/O SHRI KISHANLAL SAHU,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR SOCIAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT,
RESIDENT OF HOUSING BOARD COLONY, M/30 BEHIND
PG COLLEGE NARSINGHPUR, DISTRICT NARSINGHPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY MS. VANDANA SHROTI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA A BODY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF MAHARISHI
MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA
ADHINIYAM, 1995, THROUGH ITS VICE
CHANCELLOR MCEE CAMPUS BERSIA ROAD
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA A BODY INCORPORATED
UNDERTHE PROVISIONS OF MAHARISHI
MAHESH YOGI VEDIC VISHWAVIDAYALAYA
ADHINIYAM 1995 THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT VILLAGE KAROUNDI
POST UMARIAPAAN DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA ADMINISTRATION
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR OFFICE LAMTI VIJAY
NAGAR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
4. DEPUTY REGISTRAR MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI
VAIDIC VISHWAVIDYALAYA ADMINISTRATION
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
OFFICE LAMTI VIJAY NAGAR JABALPUR
Date: 2023.04.12 18:46:46 IST
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2
5. MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VEDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
BYPASS ROAD NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHER EDUCATION THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
S E C R E TA R Y VALLABH BHAWAN DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
THE COLLECTOR NARSINGHPUR, DISTRICT
7. NARSINGHPUR (MADHYA PRADESH).
8. SHRI V.K. SHUKLA DEPUTY REGISTRAR
MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VAIDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA ADMINSTRATION OFFICE
LAMTI VIJAY NAGAR JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
9. SMT. NAMITA PATHAK DEPUTY REGISTRAR
MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VAIDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA ADMINSTRATION OFFICE
LAMTI VIJAY NAGAR JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
10. DR. ASHOK SINGH CHOUHAN DEPUTY
REGISTRAR MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI VAIDIC
VISHWAVIDYALAYA VILLAGE KAROUNDI POST
UMARIAPAAN DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANOJ SHARMA - SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI
DEEPAK SAHU - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 4 AND SHRI
SANTOSH KUMAR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.8, 9 & 10)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved of order dated
27.05.2022 (Annx.P/1), by which respondents refused to extend the period of
Signature Not Verified
SAN
contract and in lieu of notice, issued a Demand Draft No.178555 dated
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.04.12 18:46:46 IST
27.05.2022, for a sum of Rs.14,500/-, towards one month's salary in lieu of
notice and informed the petitioner that her temporary contract employment has
come to an end.
2. Petitioner has raised two grievances, namely, when petitioner asked for
copy of the appointment order, impugned order Annx.P/1 came to be passed.
Her second grievance is that she has been working continuously with the
respondents-authorities and impugned order Annx.P/1, is passed by the Deputy
Registrar of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidhyalaya, whereas, the
authority vests in the Board of Management.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the order of Hon'ble
Coordinate Bench at Indore in Writ Petition No.4242/2015 (Mrs. Kirti Bugde
W/o Shri Pankaj Bugde), dated 07.11.2016, wherein, Coordinate Bench held
that the Management should ensure that they have Conduct Rules and
Disciplinary Service Rules in the institution for their staff contemplated in their
bye-laws and placing reliance on this judgment, it is submitted that in absence of
any Rules or Regulations, no steps could have been taken by the respondents
to not to renew the contract.
4. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decision in Mrs. Kirti Bugde (supra),
learned counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to refer it in even two other
cases though she has not filed this document, it is pointed out that on page 30
of Annx.P/2 (in Writ Petition No.5984/2023, decided today itself), documents
which were submitted by the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidhyalaya
to the competent authority for National Assessment Accreditation Council,
Bungalore, name of the petitioner is mentioned at Serial No.6. She has been
shown to be a full time regular teacher and, therefore, this contention of the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
respondents that petitioner is a contractual employee, is factually incorrect.
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.04.12 18:46:46 IST
5. The judgment which is cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in case of
Mrs. Kirti Bugde (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the present case,
inasmuch as, in that case petitioner was appointed to a school. Her provident
fund was deducted and her services were temporary. Thereafter, she was
terminated. In that backdrop, Hon'ble Coordinate Bench observed that " the
educational institutions are running like industry with huge infrastructure like
five star facilities but there is no service conditions available to their staff." It
further observed that under such circumstances, "statutory benefits like
Provident Fund, Medical facility, leave etc., which is admissible to the
Government Teachers are being denied to them, therefore, CGSE and BOSE
should ensure that before granting affiliation, they should ensure that there
should be conduct rules and disciplinary service rules in the institution for
their staff contemplated in their bye-laws."
6. However, facts of the present case are different. Respondent-University is
imparting higher education. Higher education is regulated by a regulatory body,
namely, University Grants Commission (UGC). Regulations framed by the
UGC are binding even on private Universities.
7. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned Senior Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4
and Shri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for respondents No. 8, 9 & 10, in
their turn, submit that the impugned order is though signed by the Deputy
Registrar, but there is a specific mention of it being issued 'by order'.
Respondents' counsel have produced original note sheet dated 19.04.2022,
which was initiated by the Deputy Registrar (Academics), signed by the Deputy
Registrar (Administration), Head of the Department, Director (Education),
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Registrar of the University and also the Vice Chancelllor of the University, in
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
which it is mentioned that services of the petitioner were taken on contract
Date: 2023.04.12 18:46:46 IST
basis. She worked on contract basis for several years, but he does not fulfill
the educational qualification prescribed under UGC Regulations 2018, as a
result, with the permission of the Registrar, a decision can be taken to not to
continue her services any further. Copy of this note sheet is taken on record.
8. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned Senior Advocate submits that Vice Chancellor
can exercise authority of Board of Management.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought on record copy of the
appointment order to demonstrate that petitioner was ever appointed on regular
basis after due approval of the Board of Management.
10. Thus, as is apparent from the note sheet dated 11.4.2022, that petitioner
Ms. Rajshree Sahu did not fulfill the qualifications prescribed in the regulations,
a decision was taken to discontinue the contractual employment, then that
cannot be faulted with. In fact, petitioner has failed to bring on record copy of
an appointment order showing that she was rularly recruited on the post of
Assistant Professor and that the person concerned fulfills all the requirements as
envisaged by the UGC for such appointment as if a person is appointed dehors
the qualifications prescribed by the UGC, then that may call for an action
against the University itself by the regulatory body, namely, UGC and when
tested in light of this, then impugned order deciding to not to continue the
contract employment of the petitioner cannot be faulted with.
11. Taking this fact into consideration that petitioner was found to be not
having necessary qualifications as per the UGC Regulations, an order for
discontinuance of his contractual appointment was taken by the Vice Chancellor
of the University in consultation with other officers of the University mentioned
Signature Not Verified
SAN
above and when this Court specifically asked learned counsel for the petitioner
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.04.12 18:46:46 IST
that what is the educational qualification of the petitioner and whether she fulfills
the requirements of the UGC Regulations, she is not able to answer this query,
but only submits that respondents No. 7 and 9 have accepted that they do not
have any authority to issue order Annx.P/1 and again prays for quashing of the
impugned order Annx.P/1 only on the ground that Deputy Registrar has no
authority, this Court is of the opinion that this argument has no substance.
12. The fact of the matter is that decision has been taken by the Vice
Chancellor in consultation with different authority including Director and the
Head of the Department on proposal being mooted by the Registrar
concerned. Thus, merely issuance of an order by the Deputy Registrar by
orders of the Vice Chancellor, cannot be said to be an order passed by the
Deputy Registrar to declare it to be illegal or non est.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when petitioner is not in
a position to dispute the fact that she does not possess the necessary
qualifications as per the UGC Regulations and, moreover, when the
appointment is contractual and it is for the authorities to mutually decide
whether to extend the contract or not, there is no infirmity in the impugned
order.
14. Considered I.A.No.14370/2023, an application for initiation of the criminal
contempt proceedings against respondents No.2,8, 9 and 10. Petitioner's
contention is that instead the Officer Incharge, reply was filed by the Registrar
of the University and, therefore, contempt proceedings should be initiated
against the said Registrar.
15. Ms. Vandana Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner, is requested to
Signature Not Verified
SAN
point out from record that how it is material for the petitioner that which
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
authority is filing the reply when University is taking responsibility for their reply
Date: 2023.04.12 18:46:46 IST
and are not wriggling out, saying that reply is not binding on them having been
filed by an "X. Authority", then "Y Authority", then she is unable to
demonstrate from either the provisions contained in the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 or from any other statute that how contempt petition will be
maintainable and looking to these facts, this application appears to have been
filed with a view to coerce the respondents and gain undue advantage. Such
kind of practice in the hands of the petitioner's counsel cannot be appreciated.
Petitioner's counsel appears to aid and advise their clients within the parameters
of the law. As Smt. Vandana Shroti, has failed to demonstrate from the record
and also from the provisions contained in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
that how criminal contempt proceedings can be drawn for which a detailed
procedure is laid down in Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and
it is provided that cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases can be taken
on its own motion or on a motion made by the Advocate General or any other
person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General, then how criminal
contempt is maintainable, is not explained by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. She is at loss even to point out from the basic statute that how
criminal contempt will be maintainable for the act of Registrar in filing the reply
to the petition, instead of the Officer Incharge.
16. In my opinion, this is purely an internal matter of the respondent institution
as to whom they authorised to file the return/reply. Unless respondents take a
stand that the reply filed by an ex-authority, is not binding on them and it was
filed without the due authorisation, no action is called for.
17. Thus, I.A.No.14370/2022 being misconceived and having been filed in
Signature Not Verified
SAN
excess of the jurisdiction is, hereby, dismissed.
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.04.12 18:46:46 IST
18. While arguing on I.A.No.16069/2022 an application for initiation of
appropriate action against respondent No.5 and I.A.No.1764/2023 an
application for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the petitioner,
it is submitted that respondent No.5 has acted at the behest of the petitioner and
has filed a reply supporting them, he was not authorised to file reply. It is
submitted that he is not part of the set up of the University.
19. Since petition is disposed of, it is not advisable to issue any notice to the
respondent No.5, at this stage, and respondents are given a liberty that if they
have any grievance against the respondent No.5 or any other respondents, then
they will be free to take action in accordance with law.
20. In above terms, this petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
A.Praj.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI
Date: 2023.04.12 18:46:46 IST
